Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1887-06-28

Cranes Points.
YEARs-THINGs WHICH BE SAYS Mr.. CRANE HAS
AIsEPRESENTED-AN OLD DRPALcATIoN-THB lay
ING OF WATER MAINS.
Concerning the communication from ex-water
Registrar printed In Saturdays STAR Capt
| Thos. w. Symons OF the water department. said
TO STAR reporter to-day: "The letter is such COM
pete mass OF miS-statements, misrepresentation,
half-truths, and unfOunded conclusions that It Is
hardly worth answering. am not mistaken about
anything that have stated on this question. 1t
| Is not monstrous power to devolve upon the
commissioners, the fixing Of the water-rents, when
| IL is remembered that Congress fixes the amount
to be collected and prescrbes that all rates. &C..
snail be uniform. i have not overlooked the law
requiring fireplugs to be paid for out Of the ard
funds, or the law requiring a nre-plug tax to be
| levied, but know that both laws have been alb
rogated and superseded by subsequent legislation.
| ports which prove that as the number of water
takers increase the receipts grow less. The re-
ports rightly understood prove the exact contrary.
THE WATER RENTS FOR FIFTEEN YEARS
81 have compiled a table sh owing the water
rents for the past fifteen years" said Capt symons
handing It to the reporter who read: 1912, 49,,
30324; 1878, 81, 29424; 1874, no report;
1874, So, 5622 s; 1856, s63,O4i.65: 1861
1879 So Sic, 6ss3 $50 $50 20 refunded to water.
takers by order OF court as illegally collected);
1850 81 500 679.5s; 1851 So SOL 1896 go; 1925
s65, 459.57: 1Ss3-S4, $119 71S.4S; 1SS4-S5 $1IS,-
527.2O; 1SS5-S6. S124, 96s Is.
1.-THE table shows" continued the captain, "that
these receipts have almost trebled In fifteen years.
and just about doubled In the last ten years The
revenues from water rents have gradually In
creased every year since the water was introduced
into the city. The only exceptions to this are APP
parent, not real. The amount collected during
the year 1S79'SO, according to the report of Re-
glStrar COX, was $16o, 6S3.37, but this was for
eighteen months rent. The attempt was made by
the commissioners TO change the water year to
correspond with the fiscal year, and two collec-
lions were made-one in July and August 1879,
for twelve months on a schedule based upon val
uation OF property, which was however, declared
by the courts to be illegal, and % was re-
funded; and another collection was made in JAN
uary and February. $780, for the year ending JAN
asS Te year ae m e9
succeeding IL was sos, 679.5S The average for
the three years-T9, 80, and s1-was s1O6 1905,
96S. Is.
Deducting the amount $50, 5000 refunded, the
average actual revenues from water rents for the
three years-'19, 80, anG 'S1-was $95 S97.52, or
nearly $50 900 less than the receipts for the year
1856 Another apparent discrepancy occurs in
the years So when the waterfront year was
changed TO correspond with the fiscal year in ac-
cordance with the act OF Congress.
These reports. and correct understanding of
tneln prove very cOncluSively that neither one OF
THE FOUR ALTERNATIVES OF Mr.. CRANE
are correct, but do prove that either through
incapacity, ignorance or design he has misnter-
preted them. The latter would seem to be the
case, when his attention was called to the fact
OF eighteen months rent having been collected
during the year mentioned by him by Mr.. Bond
he denies the fact and reiterateS his absurd
charges. No one cOnversant with the facts denies
that there was defaicat1On by former water
registrar years ago. but as It was not discovered
until after the defaulter was dead and took place
under another form OF District government and a
different method OF tranSacting business than the
present, am at loss to know why 1t should be
mentioned now. No Official Of the water depart
ment does or has for years handled any public
money; everything is collected by the collector OF
taxes, and disbursements are made by the auditors
department..
WATERMAN TAXES
'Tn this article in The STAR the same gross ip-
norance or worse that Is displayed in regard to
water rents is shown in regard to the subject of
Waterman taxes. The 12-inch mains mentioned
In the article, as well as all other large supply
mains, are laid without the petition OF the owners
OF property along the street In which they are
laid, and no assessment Is ever made for laying
them. The three-inch mains are almost exclri.
Stvely laid In alleys, and in many cases there is
little or no assessment for Waterman tax made
On account OF them, the property to be benefited
having previously paid the Waterman tax. These
are laid generally where the water rents to be re-
ceived make 1t a profitable investment for the
water department. The six and fOur-inch mains
It is intended to lay each side Of the streets so
that cutting into the pavements will be avoided.
In some streets it Will be desirable to lay two six
inch mains; in others one six and one four and In
interests OF the water service require that the
Waterman tax should be increased to IL cents
per SQUARE IOOt, as Recommended In my last n.
nual report, and that this amount would not be
more than enough to cover the cost of the mains
laid.
TAXES WITHOUT MAINS.
'1n regard to requiring the payment Of a water
main tax on property supplied with water before
main is laid in front OF it, have only to say
that it seems simple justice to others to REQUIRE
all who receive the benefits OF the water supply
TO bear their propOrtiOnaIe share OF the expenses
OF laying the mains and supplying the water
The commissioners have not done away with the
1nstalment clause OF the water-taX law, and, as
far as know, have never contemplated or con-
stdered anything OF the kind.
While IL Is proper and perfectly within the
power OF the water department to answer such OF
the other questions and criticisms of the writer OF
the article In question, II these asked by the
proper authorities or In a correct spirit, it is
hardly worth While wasting the time TO answer
them when propOunded in captiouS spirit by a
person who is evidently unwilling TO receive the
truth. The Slur contained in the last article in
The STAR against Mr.. Bond as the attorney for
the water department, &C., &C., displays the
petty and unjust spirit OF the writer. Mr.. Bond
simply took the trouble to inform himself OF the
truth or that which he committed to paper and
to print, q precautlon which Mr. Crane over.